Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Shop AMAZON*
Six million might make sense if she was naked and their were dwarves involved.OK: four million.
No. Who is/was she (rhetorical question--do not answer)?
If he had just posted the picture, I'd say she didn't have a case...but the picture was posted with what amounted to advertising copy. This guy was clearly trying to use her fame to promote his business. I think she should have approached the store with a more reasonable request for compensation, but we don't know that she didn't try that first.
Rx Must Nix Star Pics?Not exactly an even-handed presentation of the claim or the claimant by Above-the-Law.In almost a role reversal, Hollywood Reporter avoided the snark and did better legal analysis.
So she's suing because the store linked to a gossip rag that had a photo of her? Shouldn't she be suing the gossip rag, not the firm? It's common for companies to tweet positive mentions of their brand on TV or in magazines. How is this different?
I think the legal claim has to do with appropriating her picture for commercial purposes, so that this might seem to be closer to putting her face on their product labels.Photographing someone in public for the purpose of saying here's a photo of that person is different from using that person to promote your product. I'm not really up on this legal topic, but that's a distinction that might help you get started thinking about how the gossip magazines get away with what they do.
"It's common for companies to tweet positive mentions of their brand on TV or in magazines."Maybe those companies are paying for product placement.In any event, the person mentioning a product like that is actually endorsing it. Heigl carrying a bag from a store is only implying that she approves of the store and there's no expression of endorsement. (Again I'm not up on this legal claim, so do your own research.)
I don't know why Heigl wants her brand associated with fussiness and litigiousness, but I hope she loses both the lawsuit and the PR game and thus deters this kind of antagonism to casual photography and speech about photography.
Hasn't Heigl been out of the limelight due to maternity and child raising? With all the concern about the "77 cents", everybody feels free to mock the status of career as a result?Her claims are both state tort and federal statutory causes of action.She promises to donate any recovery to her brother's animal welfare charity.
I don't know why Heigl wants her brand associated with fussiness and litigiousness, but I hope she loses both the lawsuit and the PR game and thus deters this kind of antagonism to casual photography and speech about photography."Not to mention making her even less desirable for those who might be inclined to pay for using her for their marketing campaigns. Being fussy and litigious certainly won't help her getting paid promotions.
I'm certainly no lawyer (thank God) but the fact that the photo was not photoshopped (Like the Carney nonsense) should be a defense. The text that I saw did not imply that she always shopped there.I had no idea who she was until I read the link. he sounds very difficult and there is a history of talented actresses failing due to personal factors. Sean Young is an example. She was gorgeous and good.
She could have had a great career, but it all went to her head and became demanding and difficult. Her career took a nose dive. This will just reinforce that perception of her as humorless and high handed.
Her lawsuit is taking something ephemeral and with limited audience (a drug store's tweet on a corporate Twitter feed) and getting national attention.It's better marketing than the original tweet!
$6 million is a ridiculous amount to request.
The SNL take on this is that the picture was taken as she left the store. After finishing her shift. If she wins, new dog Jetta may have an action against the makers of "Chuck-It" brand fetchin' balls / Meade. Jetta prominently displays the brand on the hot new blog everyone, or at least some people, are following.
I think I saw "Bride of Chucky."
She may be embarrassed to learn just how low a value the jury will put to her "brand". Eight years ago, she co-starred in a hit movie and was on a popular TV series, but it's been a steep slide since those days.
> She promises to donate any recovery to her brother's animal welfare charity.Which may, or may not, be a scam.
She wouldnt need the cash if she wasn't making herself so unhireable by being such a douche to the people who hire her.
Post a Comment